Losie v. Losie

Michigan Supreme Court

Losie v. Losie

32 N.W.2d 358, 321 Mich. 112, 1948 Mich. LEXIS 458

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMay 18, 1948

DocketCalendar No. 43,959.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 32 N.W.2d 358 (Losie v. Losie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Losie v. Losie, 32 N.W.2d 358, 321 Mich. 112, 1948 Mich. LEXIS 458 (Mich. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Dethmers, J.

By decree entered Juno 14, 1946, plaintiff was granted a divorce. On February 10, 1947, defendant petitioned for, and on July 18, 1947, *113 the court ordered, a modifícátion of the decree. On July 28, 1947, defendant filed a motion to vacate the decree. On August 6, 1947, plaintiff perfected an appeal, now pending, from the order modifying the decree. On October 30, 1947, the court entered an order vacating the decree, from which this appeal is taken;

Court Rule No. 56 (1945) provides:

“Section 1. Every appeal to the Supreme Court shall be taken by filing a claim of appeal with the court, tribunal or officer whose action is to be reviewed, and paying the fee required by law for taking appeal. The Supreme Court shall thereupon have jurisdiction of the case.”

When the appeal from the order modifying the decree had been perfected this Court had jurisdiction of the case and the trial court was without jurisdiction to vacate the decree. City of Grand Rapids v. Coit, 151 Mich. 109; Hughes v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 239 Mich. 110; Scott v. Scott, 255 Mich. 663; Daugherty v. Reading, 266 Mich. 514; Goldblum v. United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Ford, Local No. 50, 319 Mich. 30. The motion to vacate having been filed more than four months after decree’s entry, Domboorajian v. Domboorajian, 235 Mich. 668, is inapplicable.

The ordering vacating the decree of divorce is reversed, with costs to plaintiff.

Bushnell, C. J., and Sharpe, Boyles, Reid, North, Butzel, and Carr, JJ., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dethmers, J.

By decree entered Juno 14, 1946, plaintiff was granted a divorce. On February 10, 1947, defendant petitioned for, and on July 18, 1947, *113 the court ordered, a modifícátion of the decree. On July 28, 1947, defendant filed a motion to vacate the decree. On August 6, 1947, plaintiff perfected an appeal, now pending, from the order modifying the decree. On October 30, 1947, the court entered an order vacating the decree, from which this appeal is taken;

Court Rule No. 56 (1945) provides:

“Section 1. Every appeal to the Supreme Court shall be taken by filing a claim of appeal with the court, tribunal or officer whose action is to be reviewed, and paying the fee required by law for taking appeal. The Supreme Court shall thereupon have jurisdiction of the case.”

When the appeal from the order modifying the decree had been perfected this Court had jurisdiction of the case and the trial court was without jurisdiction to vacate the decree. City of Grand Rapids v. Coit, 151 Mich. 109; Hughes v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 239 Mich. 110; Scott v. Scott, 255 Mich. 663; Daugherty v. Reading, 266 Mich. 514; Goldblum v. United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Ford, Local No. 50, 319 Mich. 30. The motion to vacate having been filed more than four months after decree’s entry, Domboorajian v. Domboorajian, 235 Mich. 668, is inapplicable.

The ordering vacating the decree of divorce is reversed, with costs to plaintiff.

Bushnell, C. J., and Sharpe, Boyles, Reid, North, Butzel, and Carr, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 N.W.2d 358, 321 Mich. 112, 1948 Mich. LEXIS 458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/losie-v-losie-mich-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack